HF The movie Gettsyburg observations...

Historical-Fiction
I believe that Ellis is the commander who is depicted. My reasoning is that the attacking Confederates are shown to go on to capture and turn an artillery gun. That would be one of Smiths's guns on Houck's Ridge. There was no artillery where the 20th Indiana was placed.
Watched it tonight.... Well, my son watched it, I just watched the scene. I was wondering if might be Major Cromwell instead of Ellis?
 
This is all probably pretty trivial....

I noticed the full beard which was why I thought it couldn't be Ellis. I've never seen a picture of Cromwell to be honest so I wouldn't know if he had one or not.
 
This is all probably pretty trivial....

I noticed the full beard which was why I thought it couldn't be Ellis. I've never seen a picture of Cromwell to be honest so I wouldn't know if he had one or not.

Major James Cromwell

124thInfPersonCromwell.jpg


Ryan
 
Thanks ... Not really a full beard, you've convinced me

I had read somewhere years ago that it was a depiction of Colonel Wheeler's death but there were other details that were off in the film. For example, Wheeler was one of the first men hit, killed by the 3rd Arkansas very early on, not as a signal for the men to break.

Ryan
 
Well, it doesn't make any sense to say ' Killer Angels ' was a hugely better book, hence translated into a hugely better movie but seems to have worked out that way. I don't know, with all respect to the others, they lacked Killer Angel's magic. Shaara Sr. encapsulated pockets of Time, like Burns did, weirdly in a book for us. He took liberties when he did but got an awful lot right, too.

It's the History buffs who are understandably driven crazy by the inaccuracies, but boy, the magic did translate to the screen. No idea how movie making works- have always been grateful yet another genius must have gotten their hands on this.
 
I think Shaara the Younger is a lousy writer, I mean terrible.
I agree. I couldn't get through more than a few pages of one of the son's books (Gods and Generals). Just from a purely storytelling perspective, I found it very clumsy. Seemed like he didn't quite understand how to holistically integrate what he had researched into the narrative. The Killer Angels, meanwhile, had me hooked from the first paragraph. I've reread it a couple of times, and it's always a pleasure.
 
... then he says "on the other hand, if they get artillery up there, you gotta take that hill!" it just always sounded awkward to me....

For the records, and pardon me if the omission was on purpose (and for being late), the sentence he said had another part as it was "on the other hand, if they get artillery up there we're gonna need buckets to catch the lead, you gotta take that hill!", making the argument that the hill should be taken as soon as possible to eliminate the possible thread of Union artillery up there.

On the other hand clever shooting and editing can make crowds look larger: Zulu was shot on a somewhat modest budget and without a huge number of extras yet I never heard anyone complain the battle scenes looked sparse. ...

Only a few hundred extras were used. However those are perfectly enough for the nearer shots which are most of the movie. In the end there are very few wide shots with greater numbers; and if I remember correctly they are all long-distance and scrolling with limited movement as well so it is pretty easy to use tricks.
 
Back
Top